Slashdot Mirror
FTC Levies Fine Against Big-league Spammers
An anonymous reader writes "The FTC said it has closed down a spam operation in California that sent millions of unwanted messages to online users across the country and fined the companies involved about $2.4 million. The settlement doesn't shut down the businesses and, based on the financial records of the defendants, the judgment will be suspended upon payment of $475,000."
The FTC and California charged that the defendants e-mail:
-- contained false or forged header information;
-- included deceptive subject headings;
-- failed to identify e-mail as advertisements or solicitations;
-- failed to notify consumers they had a right to opt out of receiving more e-mail;
-- failed to provide an opt-out mechanism;
-- failed to include a valid physical postal address.
If this can't get them shut down what can? Sending out spam email that totally destroys your computer into tiny little pieces?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
From TFA headline:
Then in the third paragraph:
So they shut down the "spam operation" but didn't shut down "the business".
Fat lot of good that will do.
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
So, basically what the FTC is saying to these companies is pay us for sending out your spam. I'm sure the fines will actually go up at that rate, but it doesn't solve the problem per se.
I wonder if the FTC will turn around and use the fine money to pay the people who were affected by the spam? Nah!
Ever since I heard about the FTC's spam address I forwarded all my spam to it, (what made through the school's filters at least,) even after hearing detracting opinions about it. Good to know my contribution to the effort may not have been entirely in vain.
Well, in Denmark we still have some protection of the consumers. A wine retail company recently agreed to pay a fine of 40,000 DKR (roughly $6200 or 5300) for sending about 950 unsolicited e-mails.
I think this is the way it should be. As long as it pays to send SPAM, it will be sent - it's a plain and simple business calculation.
Spam is hugely profitable, because your overhead is nil. That means the spammers involved have lots of cash. And their company probably has no assets, and will fold into bankruptcy because of these fines. So what does this mean? The guys dig into their pockets filled with cash, and start another company and do it all over again. Its sort of a nice noble gesture, from when Congress clearly had nothing better to do, but its about as effective as making speeding illegal.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I want them to be sentenced to write (by hand) an apology to every person they've wronged...
and to memorize and pronounce the words made of random letters they include to try to evade spam filters
and to change their names to the one in the "from" field. That is, legally change their names to names such as... let me check my mailbox for a second... "Recipe 4Living", "Approval Dept", "Content Paradise", "Your Mngr. mosettamay", "Sr. Loan Specialist" and "Always Savings".
Now that's justice.
Punishing a massive spam operation by fining them $475,000 is like punishing a murderous street gang by making them surrender a leather jacket. If anything, this is going to encourage more spam, since spammers will see how utterly light and inconsequential the punishments truly are.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
Msft does this all time, they blantantly break the law, and when they get fined: they yawn and throw somebody some pocket change.
Toxic waste dumpers used to this also. It was cheaper to just pay the fine for dumping toxic waste, than to pay for the expensive process of correct disposal.
My guess in a $475 fine every five years, or so, is worth it. I expect the spammers to be right back at it.
These "entities" that get busted are only fined some arbitrary number, and since they rake in a lot more from their profitable spamming business, then there's no incentive to stop. Right? Why don't they do an investigation and find out how much profit was earned from their spamming ventures, and make that their fine? Better yet, they could just find out how much assets they have, and take all. Wouldn't that stop it?
They could make it completely illegal with penalties up to and including taking every last penny you have. So what? Won't they just move out of the country and/or use clever Internet spoofing to hide themselves? Of course it's hard to get people to send you money when they don't know where/who you are... but just because I own some real estate company, and just because 10 million spams went out yesterday advertising that company's product, doesn't mean that I was the one that sent the spam. Without officially knowing the source, as long as I can keep hiding that, I'm in the clear. If they just shutdown the company that the spam advertised, it would become a great way to get your competition shut down!
So here's an idea... why don't we start educating the public about how to recognize spam and NOT TO BUY WHAT THEY'RE SELLING!!!! The day this stops is the day it becomes not profitable. Ultimately, it's Joe Dufus in Bumsville, USA who actually says "Wow, my penis must be really small and/or impotent. I guess my wife got me on some pfvizagra mailing list... I better buy some from this company to make her happy!" or, "Wow, I can get a $300k loan at a flat rate of 5%!! I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a hell of a deal! I better call them..."
The people who keep spam alive are the people who buy into it. That should be the target of our anti-spam efforts; trying to stop people from sending spam is like trying to stop the Internet altogether (since that's about what it would take, if you're fighting it from that end). We've got to get people to quit buying this shit!
I understand that a lot of people aren't particularly computer-savvy, but if someone came up to you on the street and tried to sell you a dozen spy cameras you wouldn't think twice before saying no.
But then I got to this, near the end of the article:
It's easy to see what happened here. The spammers pleaded with the court, "But we don't have two million dollars!" The court was wary and said, "Fine, we'll just charge you the full worth of your company" (which wipes them out, effectively "shutting them down") but it appears the judge added a provision that if the spammers are lying to weasel out of the fine, they will be held accountable.I have a feeling the spammers will flee the country when it becomes clear they were lying. But at least they will have been forced to give up their nice American lives and their nice American bandwidth. That just might make other spammers question whether the price is worth the profit.
The Internet is full. Go away.
The FTC should hook up with the IRS to go after spammers.
Basically, if you're caught spamming the Feds come in and make you account for all of your income over the last year. Any money derived from spamming is forfeited, plus penalties. I'd also like to see the penalties weighted so that if the spammer gives up the identity of who paid him or her to spam, the penalty is reduced if that person is successfully prosecuted as well. This way the number of spammers and the companies which contract them get slapped.
Any legitimate business should be able to account for all its income. If a spammer can't prove his income is clean, it is no different than a drug trafficker having piles of cash around which just magically appeared. Anything which can't be documented as coming from a non-spam source should be considered profits of a criminal enterprise, and should get seized.
If you read through other FTC settlements, this is entirely typical. In return for the "target" company not fighting the FTC action, they give up all their money and promise to go forth and sin no more. It usually allows them to engage in their business, whatever that is, but they must not violate the rules again. This settelment was not unique to spammers. It is the same deal that is usually offered to "guaranteed credit card" rip-offs, rule-violating telemarketers, etc.
Typical language: "Defendants are enjoined from engaging in business practices violating the XYZ act in the future."
Of course, there are those that accept the settlement, and then go right back and do the same damn thing again. When that happens, usually the FTC goes directly to court and obtains an injunction against the whole company, and the offender is completely barred from whatever business they were in. Example: "Defendents are permanently barred from owning, operating, or being employed in any operation that involves the sending of e-mail for marketing purposes."
If they violate this, or try to hide, or the conduct is particularly nasty, they get referred to the justice dept. for prosecution.
Everyone's favorite late-night infomercial moron, Kevin Trudeau (speed reading, memory improvement, etc.) got slapped twice by the FTC, so he wised up and instead deceided to promote a completely bogus book instead. Since it a book containing opinions instead of a worthless physical product, the FTC can't stop him, despite him being as full of B.S. as ever.
SirWired
As part of the settlement negotiation, their attorney said that they are considering filing bankruptcy. My response was, I couldn't be happier than have them bankrupt and living out of cardboard boxes, and if my suit does not do it, then I will help others do it.
3 spammers down, too lots left.
Fight Spammers!